Saturday, January 27, 2007

Gay Marriage

No one has asked me what I think abut Gay marriage, but IF they did, I would say that I just don't know.

I do know that I believe everyone should have the same legal rights, whether they choose a same-sex partner or not.  But that is not what the Gay community seems to want.  They decline "domestic partner: laws".  They want to get MARRIED. 

So the question is "should we change the meaning of the word 'married' to include domestic partnerships." And I am still undecided.

Words change in meaning over the course of time.  Just because a word meant one thing at the turn of the last century, does not mean that it will mean the same thing at the turn of this century.  Take "square".  It used to mean straight shooting upright and honest.  Now it means feeble and old fashioned.  When kids told dad he was square, he didn't know whether to be pleased or offended.  No one wants to be "square" these days.   The word "gay" itself has changed.  It used to mean happy and carefree, but now it means homosexual.  Words change with useage, but can we change a word through legislation?  Can we change "married" from being wedded to a partner of the opposite sex to being partners with a same-sex lover.

AND who gave the government the right to say whom we could be partners with, anyway.  Government seized control of who may marry whom, at what age, and of what relationship and of what race, in some cases.  Also they regulate what sex your partner must be.  Who gave them that right anyway? 

Suppose some nice old lady wants to marry her pet cat, should she have the right?  They sleep together anyway, why not let them marry?  (I am NOT undecided about interspecies marriage...I reject it, but I just brought it up as an example of something that does NOT need to be regulated or legislated.  Maybe marriage does not need to be regulated at all.)

So, I discover, I am against a constitutional amendments pertaining to marriage, for or against.  Let the government butt out.  Marry whom you like, call it what you like, marriage or domestic partnership.  If you need legislation, let it be that all folks, partnered, married, single, separated have the same rights.

So I am neither for nor against legalizing gay marriage.  I am for butting out.  Call me an anarchist if you must, but I think we regulate too much already.

.

5 comments:

garnett109 said...

Chuck Who knows anymore, there is alot more to worry about in this world than gay marriages !
Have a great weekend!

magogos said...

I do love anarchists. Margo

bamawmn46 said...

In this world of screwed up politics, war, cost of living, the hum-drum and costly lifestyles, if someone can find another person they enjoy and love enough to make them their partner, no matter if they are the same sex or not, who am I to say, "NO, you must be miserable because your are different!!"  After all of the changes our nation has come to accept, such as people with disabilities, race, and Viet Nam veterans (remember how these vets were put upon when returning?), why do we now have another stumbling block of people we have to accept. I bet it all has to do with insurance!! As you know, that is one of my main pet peeves in life!!  LOL
Jackie

plieck30 said...

I'm kind of on the fence about this too. I do think if they legalize it people will lose interest in it and go on to something else. I thought your example of an elderly lady wed to her cat because they already sleep together was a good one. Paula

plittle said...

  One of the problems many people face when thinking about this issue is the preconception we all hold that homosexuality is only about the sex act. Fact is, if a man and a woman can have a relationship that is intimate in far more ways than just sex - intellectually, emotionally - if a man and a woman can marry out of an enduring love in which sex is simply one small aspect, why should we believe that it is any different for a man and a man, or a woman and a woman?
-Paul
http://journals.aol.ca/plittle/AuroraWalkingVacation/